Differential evolution with the adaptive penalty method for structural multi-objective optimization
- 155 Downloads
Real-world engineering design problems, like structural optimization, can be characterized as a multi-objective optimization when two or more conflicting objectives are in the problem formulation. The differential evolution (DE) algorithm is nowadays one of the most popular meta-heuristics to solve optimization problems in continuous search spaces and has attracted much attention in multi-objective optimization due to its simple implementation and efficiency when solving real-world problems. A recent paper has shown that GDE3, a well-known DE-based algorithm, performs efficiently when solving structural multi-objective optimization problems. Also an adaptive penalty technique called APM was adopted to handle constraints. However, the authors did not investigate the contribution of this technique and that of the GDE3 algorithm separately. So, in this work, the results obtained by GDE3 equipped with the APM scheme (denoted here by GDE3 + APM) are compared with those found by the original GDE3 in order to investigate the advantages and limitations of this constraint handling technique in those problems. The results of the GDE3 + APM are also compared with the most commonly used multi-objective meta-heuristic, namely NSGA-II, in order to comparatively evaluate the quality of the solutions obtained with respect to other algorithms from the literature. The analysis indicates that GDE3 + APM is more efficient than both GDE3 and NSGA-II in most performance metrics used when solving the structural multi-objective optimization problems considered here, suggesting that the GDE3 + APM algorithm is promising in this area, and that the APM technique makes a considerable contribution to its performance.
KeywordsStructural multi-objective optimization Differential evolution Constraint handling Adaptive penalty method
The authors thank CNPq (Grants 310778/2013-1 and 306186/2017-9) and FAPEMIG (Grants TEC PPM 528/11, TEC PPM 388/14, and APQ-03414-15).
- Angelo JS, Bernardino HS, Barbosa HJC (2012) Multi-objective ant colony approaches for structural optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on computational structures technology, paper, p 66Google Scholar
- Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2002) An adaptive penalty scheme in genetic algorithms for constrained optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference on GECCO’02, New York, pp 287–294Google Scholar
- Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2003a) An adaptive penalty scheme for steady-state genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on genetic and evolutionary computation: parti GECCO’03, pp 718–729Google Scholar
- Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS, Barreto AMS (2010) Using performance profiles to analyze the results of the 2006 CEC constrained optimization competition. In: 2010 IEEE world congress on computational intelligence-WCCI, pp 1–8Google Scholar
- Carvalho ECR, Carvalho JPG, Bernardino H, Hallak PH, Lemonge ACC (2016) An adaptive constraint handling technique for particle swarm in constrained optimization problems. In: CIATEC-UPF, p 8Google Scholar
- Gellatly RA, Berke L (1971) Optimal structural design. Tech. rep, DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
- Kukkonen S, Lampinen J (2005) GDE3: The third evolution step of generalized differential evolution. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2005), IEEE, pp 443–450Google Scholar
- Lemonge ACC, Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS (2015) Variants of an adaptive penalty scheme for steady-state genetic algorithms in engineering optimization. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-07-2014-0158
- Rajeev S, Krishnamoorthy CS (1992) Discrete optimization of structures using genetic algorithms. ASCE J Struct Eng 118(5):1233–1250. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:5(1233) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sierra MR, Coello CAC (2005) Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and epsilon-dominance. In: EMO 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 505–519Google Scholar
- Silva EK, Augusto DA, Barbosa HJC (2013) Improved surrogate model assisted differential evolution with an infill criterion. In: Proceedings of 10th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization. http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/mdo/Papers/5576.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
- Storn R, Price K (1995) Differential evolution a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. Tech. Rep. 95-012. University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
- Vargas DEC, Lemonge ACC, Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS (2016) An algorithm based on differential evolution for structural multiobjective optimization problems with constraints (in portuguese). Rev Int Métodos Num Cálc Diseño Ing 32(2):91–99Google Scholar
- Xue F, Sanderson A, Graves R (2003) Pareto-based multiobjective differential evolution. Proc Congr Evol Comput (CEC) 2:862–869Google Scholar
- Zeng F, Low MYH, Decraene J, Zhou S, Cai W (2010) Self-adaptive mechanism for multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists 2010, vol 1Google Scholar